[From Rick Marken (2004.02.16.1045)]
I forgot to press "Save" while doing my spam blocking so Bill Williams' last
two posts came through. And since the CSG posts are readily available at
http://listserv.uiuc.edu/archives/csgnet.html, spam protection is really not
going to keep me from seeing selected CSGNet posts. And I no longer think
it's really necessary to avoid seeing such posts. I think all discussion is
potentially useful. So I'll reply to some posts (or parts thereof) that I
think could use some clarification and just ignore the slim.
First, I'll reply to some earlier comments about my purported "attacks" on
Tom Bourbon and Ed Ford.
Bill Williams (11 February 2004 6:00 PM CST)
I wasn't around when as I understand it, Bill Powers and the
chief assistant designer made their attack upon Tom Bourbon
and Ed Ford.
Neither Bill P. nor I ever attacked Tom or Ed. In fact, neither Tom nor Ed
was on CSGNet when the supposed "attacks" occurred. Bill and I were simply
arguing (on CSGNet, without Ed and Tom present) that coercion occurs even
when those who are coerced go along without resistance and that telling a
person that they have chosen to do something that they haven't chosen it was
deceitful. Although Tom was not on the net at the time I had assumed that
he would agree with all this. In the midst of this argument, Isaac Kurtzer
posted to CSGNet an "open letter" from Tom saying that Bill and I were not
applying PCT correctly and that our arguments were an attack on him. I think
Bill was as surprised by this letter as I was.
Marc Abrams (2004.02.12.0935)
and if you think Marken and Powers did not drive Ford and Bourbon
away, why not just ask them.
I may have driven Ed Ford away. But it wasn't intentional (I like Ed) and I
didn't do it by personal attacks. The only possible "attacking" I did was
criticism of his religion and his program. I think my comments about
Catholicism were tougher on him than my comments about his program. But I
saw Ed at meetings after he left CSGNet (to form his own discussion group
regarding RTP) and I thought our relationship was quite friendly. So I think
the "Rick drove Ed off the net" idea is mythology that developed in
retrospect.
Tom left CSGNet a year or more before the "coercion" and "I see you have
chosen" debates occurred. So it was impossible for me to have driven Tom
from CSGNet because he wasn't there. He had already left the net. And I saw
and corresponded with Tom several times after he had left CSGNet and we
seemed to agree completely about everything concerning PCT and I thought we
were the best of friends. We were even planning to do a PCT consulting
business together at on point. Tom was like my PCT soul mate. I had (and
still have) no interest in attacking Tom in any way. I hope he will return
soon to doing work on PCT.
You [David] were certainly here when the "I see you have chosen" BS put
Bourbon in a no win situation between Ford and Powers with Rick leading
the charge and Powers remaining silent on the sidelines or,defering to
Rick's ranting non arguments instead of Bourbon's data.
Neither Tom nor Ed was on CSGNet when the "I see you have chosen" debate
occurred. The debate was not BS but a perfectly reasonable discussion about
a phrase that Bill and I felt had no place in a program that is presumably
based on PCT and that aims to teach kids to take responsibility for their
own actions. The RTP literature recommended the use of the "I see you have
chosen" phrase to imply that the disruptive student, not the teacher, was
responsible for choosing that the student leave the room. Tom, who was off
line, was apparently not in a "no win" situation with respect to Ed and Bill
since Ed eventually agreed with Bill (and I) and has stopped recommending
use of the "I see you have chosen" phrase.
Bill Williams (14 February 04 11:30 PM CST)
It seems to me more apparent now than it was half a decade ago
that Bill Powers retains extremely influential misconceptions he
got from his dad. Not having read the Leakages tract, I couldn't
say, but the misconception that Y = C + S + I must have come
from somewhere.
I forget what these letters stand for. My guess is that Y is the flow of
income to the aggregate consumer (GDP), C is the portion of that flow that
is used for consumption, S is the portion used for savings and I is the
portion used for investment. If this is true, this is not quite what I
assume in H. economicus. In that model, Y = C + S (if I have the meaning of
the symbols correct).
RSM
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400